| 摘要: | 自1960年代以降，全球眾多民主國家的政治領導者，開始出現了權力「集中化」（centralization）和「個人化」（personalization）的發展趨勢，這在學界又被稱為「總統化」（presidentialization）現象。基本上，該現象可依背後成因，區分為「憲法總統化」（constitutional presidentialization）及「政治總統化」（political presidentialization）兩大類型。其中，前者係指透過憲法的正式變遷所牽引，後者則是受到實際運作的諸多政治因素所造成。本文之主旨，便是觀察我國民主化（democratization）的進程當中，是否存在前述兩種現象的傾向。
依據本文分析，我國歷經七次修憲之後，憲法內的確逐漸增加了許多「總統化元素」（the elements of presidentialization），因此具備「憲法總統化」的趨勢。實質上，我國總統依舊為超然中立的國家元首角色，縱使憲法賦予總統免除副署（countersign）的權力，但其功能係屬於維繫憲政秩序、化解政治僵局的「仲裁權」（arbitral powers）。更確切地說，總統的功能定位，是由過去「修正式內閣制」（modified cabinet system） 的「儀典總統」（ceremonial president）轉型為「仲裁總統」（arbitral president）的角色。
不過，若由「政治總統化」觀察，我國自憲法實施以來，始終是依循總統制的內在邏輯運作，透過總統兼任黨主席的傳統慣例下，逐步掌握國政大權。可是，這種運作模式並未隨著民主化而有所式微，反因總統民選且享有仲裁權力更趨鞏固。畢竟，在總統身居國家元首和政黨領袖的雙重身分之下，憲政主義（constitutionalism）中所蘊含的「有限政府」（limited government）精神，必將面臨嚴峻的考驗。職是之故，讓我國總統回歸原初設定的超然中立地位，便成為當前的主要課題所在。
Ever since the 1960s, the developing tendency towards power centralization and personalization, which is also called the phenomenon of ‘presidentialization’ in academia, has emerged from the political leaders of numerous democratic countries worldwide. According to underlying causes, the phenomenon can be fundamentally divided into two different types: constitutional presidentialization and political presidentialization; the former is contributed by formal constitutional amendments, while the latter is caused by the practical operation of many political factors. Thus, the intention of this research is mainly aimed at observing the democratization process in our country and identifying the existence of the two types of phenomenon mentioned above.
According to the analysis result of this research, a considerable sum of ‘the elements of presidentialization’ has been gradually added to the Constitution of our country after going through constitutional amendments for seven times. Therefore, a tendency of constitutional presidentialization took shape already. In fact, although the Constitution gives the president the power of exempting countersign, our president still remains a neutral role of head of state, which takes on the function of ‘arbitral power’ for maintaining constitutional order and resolving political impasses. More precisely speaking, the function and position of our president has been transformed from the role of ‘ceremonial president’ in the past ‘modified cabinet system’ to the new role of ‘arbitral president’.
However, from the perspective of ‘political presidentialization’, our country has always followed the internal logic of the presidential system ever since the implementation of the Constitution; which means our president is able to increasingly control the power of both state and government through the traditional practice of serving the chairman of the party concurrently. Meanwhile, this mode of operation does not decline with the practice of democratization; instead, it becomes even more consolidated due to the presidential election and the given arbitral power. As long as the president occupies the dual role of the head of state and the leader of the party, the spirit of ‘limited government’ in the constitutionalism must face a critical challenge under the circumstances. Consequently, how to adjust the role of our president to the original neural role has become the most crucial lesson for us at the present time. |
